Granted, there have been some fantastic inventions in the history of man. Like the wheel, that's still going pretty strong and with a massive distribution even now. Will the iPod follow in its footsteps? Unlikely that it's not going to 'ever die'. So yes, it will. Might take five years, might take twenty; but yes it will die.

Seeing as the article was still in my browser, and is now slashdotted I copied the text here.

The iPod has dominated the MP3 player (and portable video player) market so far. It began the ultimate revolution in how we listen to our music. Competitors have come and gone, while the iPod stood strong, but really, will the iPod ever die? Well there are a few points that say NO and some that say YES.

NO! It will not die! (at the bottom of the article we look at the possibility of it actually dying, but for no

I'm trying to figure out why the DRM is an issue. My iPod has exactly 0 DRM encumbered songs on it. How did I escape the wrath of Apple? Maybe it is because I don't use the iTunes Music Store. It's not a requirement for an iPod, but a choice.

If you don't like the iPod because it's too popular and has white ear-buds, just say so. Don't try to spread mis-information for some pathetic anti-iPod agenda.

I want my music player to do playback and recording in a format unencumbered by any DRM so I can create and share as I see fit. Apple doesn't give me that,

This is patently false. iPods and iTunes will both play unencumbered mp3s, and iTunes is perfectly happy to rip CDs to unencumbered mp3s.

I have many gigabytes of music on my computer that I ripped from my own CDs. There's not a single DRM-encumbered track on my computer, and I play them all with iTunes, iPods, and mp3 CD-ROMs made with single click burning from iTunes. (My car stereo plays mp3 CD-ROMs.)

Furthermore, iTunes' restriction that it won't copy mp3s off of an iPod and onto a computer is merely proforma to mollify the recording industry. There is nothing built into the iPod to prevent you from copying mp3s off of it and onto your computer. In fact, there are a number of free programs out there that let you do precisely this.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the iPod, but the DRM one I don't particularly understand. Okay, so the iPod supports DRM. It doesn't require it. There is nothing about owning an iPod which requires you to purchase music from the iTMS. You can own an iPod and just ignore the iTMS completely, and use it just like you would an iRiver or a Creative or whatever.

The whole "I hate the iPod because I don't want to pay $0.99 a song" is silly. Nothing about the iPod requires that you buy your music that way. In fact, I'd argue that if you want to get your music from a CD, the iPod is probably still the best player, because iTunes is the easiest ripping/syncing/library-management software around -- naturally that's debatable, of course.

Your points about the lack of a microphone and a line input are well taken, because they're actual capabilities of other devices which the iPod does not have. But the DRM thing is a rather silly point and it gets brought up a lot. If you're buying another player as a sort of "protest vote" against DRM, that's your choice, but it's not really a limitation of the device. Apple isn't Sony, and you can use an iPod just fine without ever paying a cent into the iTMS or buying a single DRMed song.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the iPod, but the DRM one I don't particularly understand. Okay, so the iPod supports DRM. It doesn't require it.

DRM probably has driven some key aspects of the design of iPod. For example, the fact that the iPod doesn't present its contents as a file system, like many other MP3 players do, is probably due to DRM. The fact that it's hard to get music off the device is also driven by DRM concerns. Likewise, the fact that the iPod does not support syncing to multiple machines well is probably influenced by DRM. Lack of iTunes support for third party MP3 players, and lack of third party support for iPod is another consequence.

The fact that it's hard to get music off the device is also driven by DRM concerns

That may sound a bit harsh, but it's only hard if you're a moron. Seriously, if you know a small bit about the Terminal, you don't even need any kind of third-party app to copy MP3 files from an iPod. It's all there as plain old files, just inside invisible (to the Finder, that is) folders. It's not hard at all.

Yeah, it's not as easy as it should be, although it has got nothing to do with DRM - in fact, you can copy DRM'd

DRM probably has driven some key aspects of the design of iPod. For example, the fact that the iPod doesn't present its contents as a file system, like many other MP3 players do, is probably due to DRM.

FUD. The iPod shows up as a mass-storage device. All of the files on it can be read out of it with normal file-manipulation tools. The names of music files are obfuscated, but if they were tagged with the appropriate type of metadata before they were put there, it's not much work to throw together some

Actually, no. If you know anything about Computer Science, you will recognize the iPod's file storage mechanism is a hash table in which all the songs are evenly distributed amongst a file tree; it reduces file seeks/searches. Then there is the other aspect, that the entire filesystem is stored in an index file to make searches and browsing of content instantaneous; instead of looking through the harddrive, the iPod merely looks through a file loaded into memory and when it needs to access the song uses the afore mentioned hash table to access the song.

Also if you didn't know, Apple just added in the latest revision of iTunes the ability to synch to multiple machines, and iTunes has existed for longer than the iPod. The very first versions of iTunes has (and still may, I don't see why they wouldn't) supported Rio, Diamond, and Creative MP3 players.

There is a utility called "Tag and Rename" that addresses the problem of "Help, I have 15,000 MP3 files with accurate, consistent filenames but no ID3 tags." You can create a batch job that parses the metadata in your.MP3 filenames and turns it into ID3 tags. It's a real lifesaver when using iTunes.

And furthermore, what are you going to do with your mashups that have more than one primary artist but for whatever reason you want it classified with a particular artist so you leave it in that folder though you want the filename and id3 tag to represent both artist's names. So when you play your music by artist, you won't hear your mashups and remixes with the artists you normally associate them with. That's just a clusterfuck.

You simply add the original artist to "Composer" or "notes," or whatever other

[...] I should have the CHOICE whether I want to tag my files or not. [...] So-called smart playlists is the dumbest idea I have ever seen. I don't need Jobs and cos. iTMS crapware algorithmically mis-predicting what I want to listen to. A person that primarily listens on shuffle will find smart playlists to be quite "dumb" to say the least.

Personnal attacks aside, it seems you don't even know what you're talking about. Your hatred of anything from Apple probably makes you blind to reality.

The fact is, that's the way iTunes works. Any music player worthy of that name should also work that way in 2006. Music, by its nature, already has metadata associated with it, wether you want it or not. Year, type of music, artist, composer. album, track number, disc number, etc. The fact that you don't put the metadata in your files is your problem, not mine.

When you decide to put a track in a single directory, it limits you to a single metadata field (ex: artist directory, album sub-directory). You can't, however, make a "Best of the 1980's" from those files afterward. With smart playlists and metadata, it's done with a simple rule. Want a "Best Rock Tunes of the 80's"? Two rules. No need to handle files and directories. That's what metadata and smart playlists are all about. You make the smart playlists and define which fields to use and which parameters you want to apply to fiter those fields.

How do you handle tracks that should be in multiple directories? Aliases? I don't think your iRiver handles aliases... (and if it does, then fine for you).

Once you let go of the "I have to manage my files myself" syndrome and let iTunes do it, you'll be making your computer work for you. Until then, do your directories thing if you think it's good enough, and do the work your computer should be doing.

Well, I'm going to say it'll die around 2020 or so. I think that in 10-15 years, people will begin to recieve implanted cell phones (complete with bone-conduction speakers and subvocal mics). As soon as that reaches critical mass, all portable music players will go away as people just have their music streamed into their skulls.

Frink: Well, sure, the Frinkiac-7 looks impressive, don't touch
it, but I predict that within 100 years, computers will
be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive
that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.

In Malaysia, the ipod isn't terribly popular. Sure some folks have them, but it's rare. A lot of people do own an mp3 player, but it's usually of varied brands. The reason is that ipods are just too expensive for the average youth to own, and there is no iTunes service to download music from over in this part of the world.

It also applies to Brazil, iPods are really expensive here compared to the other alternatives... an order of magnitude more expensive. And we don't have access to the ITMS either.

So, I think the article is US/Europe/Japan centric... from their perspective the world is a much smaller place. Our countries are "secondary" markets, and they don't enven include us when they calculate the Digital Audio Players marketshare. It's sad, but is true.

The article is just some blogger listing a bunch of reasons why the iPod is better than the Zune. Maybe if it were someone who's an authority on the subject it might be worth reading but after wasting my time I got the distinct impression that it's probably just a mac fan. Now that doesn't make his argument incorrect but it's not really worth a discussion.

"What it *doesn't* let you play is older DRM-protected WMA files such as those downloaded from Yahoo Music Unlimited or Rhapsody."Isn't this a huge mistake? Isn't the biggest drawback of DRM that you are locked into a specific implementation? That people are worried that the songs they've "purchased" will turn out to be useless next year? This seems to confirm people's worst fears that MS will obsolete their entire song collection just because it's more profitable to do so.

Out of curiosity, which other brands offer a similar service? I have a feeling the brand I stick with will be the one to offer the best post-purchase support. For one thing, it shows confidence in their product.

No, but it's better than having a dead product without having the ability to replace its battery. iriver recently started using a similar battery system to Apple; even though their warranty covers less material for less time, they offer no battery replacement service. All batteries die, at least Apple has a system under which you can replace yours.

On the contrary: the most expensive iPod, the 80 GB 20 hour model, costs $350. The battery replacement service is $65 or free if your iPod is within warranty period (one year).

Most other manufacturers of comparably sized digital music players have only a 90 day warranty period and a $30-$50 cost for battery replacement. For $15 more per battery replacement (a rare occurrence), I could get my preferred product.

The thing about saying that other brands don't have a similar service is that it's true. I can't send my Iriver h10 to Iriver and have them put a battery in it. The bastards require me to push a little button, slide it off, and order another one for..hang on... $39.99USD. And they won't even let me ship it in so they can install it! I have to keep my player while they send me the new battery!

Which is fine if you don't mind a portable product a quarter of the capacity, four times the thickness, less than a third of the battery life (per charge), and nowhere near the warranty coverage of the iPod 80 GB. (I won't mention video support as I happen to think it's a useless feature.) Even taking into account the $25 savings every few years, iriver's H10 doesn't seem to have much to offer in comparison.

The (discontinued?) H20 didn't feature a user-replaceable battery, good to know the new H10s do.

Which is your MP3 player and are its specs and battery life comparable to those of any of Apple's current iPod models? I'm guessing it's one of the older iriver models? iriver has since started using a battery system comparable to the one Apple uses in iPod.

If I were average Joe who didn't want to take apart my iPod to replace the battery then yes. It's the only thing I hate about iPod. I am sure they designed it this way to. After all, by the time the battery dies, the mindless consumer will just want the latest iPod that is out.

Most products are designed with a certain lifespan in mind. Companies realized that while people will moan and grumble they will still go and fork out for that new washing machine because they need it. That's why TVs and microwaves from the 80's still work, but more recent ones will only have lifespans of 3-4 years.

The moment companies start to design products without a limited lifespan the sky will *actually* fall.

That's very funny, because as someone who was actually alive over 20 years ago, I can tell you that people said the very same thing back then.

Notice the pattern:

In the 2000s, everything built in the 1980s lasted forever; things made in the 2000s break after a few years.In the 1980s, everything built in the 1960s lasted forever; things made in the 1980s break after a few years.In the 1960s, everything built in the 1940s lasted forever; things made in the 1960s break after a few years.In the 1940s, everything built in the 1920s lasted forever; things made in the 1940s break after a few years.In the 1920s, everything built in the 19th century lasted forever; things made in the 1920s break after a few years.

And yes, I've done research on this. My grandparents are over 90 and swear that everything made since the Great Depression is crap and never lasts. I've found early newspaper op-ed pieces from the 1910s that claim the very same thing, just pushing back the date a little.

(The secret, of course, is that the things made in year X that only last a few years are long since discarded, and we only remember the things that last any decent length of time)

Repeated post from a while back. I can't believe people still believe the "stuff made today is shit, while everything made in the past lasted forever" meme.

I can't believe people still believe the "stuff made today is shit, while everything made in the past lasted forever" meme.

It is very unusual. According to my grandparents, memes used to last forty to sixty years before getting replaced. Now a days, your typical meme lasts a few years at best. Case in point: hot grits + Portman = L.A.M.E. This 'shitty stuff' meme is quite the exception.

I can't believe people still believe the "stuff made today is shit, while everything made in the past lasted forever" meme.

Indeed, this is among my favorite myths. Another factor affecting that perception is the process of commoditization. Microwave ovens are a great example. Today you find all kinds of people bellyaching about how microwaves now are crap compared to "the one my [mother|grandmother|aunt] had back in '79", but this is not entirely true. You can get a good, solid, bulletproof microwave oven [microwavespecialties.com]

But there is some truth to it as well. I inherited my great grandparents' microwave (I know they used it daily). It was built in 1972, before I was born. It finally died three years ago. I have gone through 2 microwaves since then, and I did my researcy and intentionally avoided cheap easy-break microwaves. I remember when my parents bought their first microwave in the mid 80's. It lasted a good 15 years. Since it died they have had several replacements. My grandmother is using the same microwave that she b

July, 1983 - The Sony Walkman has dominated the portable cassette player market so far. It began the ultimate revolution in how we listen to our music......

Back to the present, the Walkman ceased to dominate the industry 15 years ago or more. The iPod will someday share it's fate. TFA is a lame blog article written by some fanboy who thinks he is creative, insightful, and discerning.

You know Taco, if it is a slow news day, it's better to leave the front page alone than to post "stories" like this just for the sake of filling space.

The cassette walkman and CD walkman worked were icons of Sony. They were simple to use and people could easily enjoy the music without having to understand the technology too much.

That all changed with the MiniDisc player (MD)

The MiniDisc player was one of the first players to introduce DRM to the music world (and people didn't really get it [trying to explain DRM in the late 1990's was a nightmare... yes, even worse than today]). Also, ATRAC/ATRAC3 wasn't

My Walkman broke earlier this year. Will I get an iPod? No. I use Yahoo Music Unlimited on my laptop now. Listening to local FM on the walk to work was my only reason to have a mobile player of any kind. If I get another mobile player, it'll have to support Yahoo's DRM and it'll have to have recording off FM. I've been looking at some of the Sandisk players. As far as I'm concerned, the iPod never lived. It just doesn't interest me. I like the PC platform and things associated with it, simply becau

The iPod solved the major problems of its predecessors. It enables me to take 3300+ songs with me (15GB) on a very small device. Of course, it's not perfect, but I don't see how the availability of new technology will change the perfect music player radically like it did before.

Well, I do! The perfect music player would be integrated directly into your nerves from the ear. Failing that, it could be operated into the ear canal. Failing that, it could be a set of headphones that didn't require a cord. For s

You are comparing the walkman to the ipod, which is a pretty useless comparison. The point is that the walkman dominated early portable cassette player sales. The ipod dominates current (which is early in the day) portable 'mp3' player sales (although unlike Sony, Apple didn't create the market in the first place). There is nothing in the ipod that another mp3 player cannot do, just like there was nothing in the walkman that another cassette player couldn't do.

Back in the time of the walkman, there was no technology and nothing ready in the foreseable future that predicted the doom of the cassette player.

Just one thought about the iPod, where is internet and connectivity? I guess that in several years, a music player that does not allow you to get a tune from your friend player or just immediatly after having seen a commercial in the tube will seem pretty lame ( what you have to connect that to your computer ? How quaint )

Or if someone comes out with a clearly superior product. I don't see any on the shelves at Best Buy that fit that bill, I haven't heard of any on the horizon, and I don't imagine Apple, the company that it currently is, allowing that to happen. To a certain degree, the question with Apple is, what happens when Jobs retires? Last time he left the company, they went from a company that was constantly pushing the envelope to one that could barely keep up.

The iPod is a revolutionary device, although maybe not techinically, it has entered the conciousness of the public and it will be extremely hard for anyone to even try and match it's market dominance. The one thing Microsoft could have done with the Zune was to make sharing music unrestricted, but once again red tape has stopped it and the DRM will limit the function that could have made the Zune the better choice (along with Apple cutting the price, a move Microsoft didn't expect). I think the only thing to match the iPod now will be a device that is a mix of genres, much like the phone that is rumoured to be in development from Apple, if they can successfully merge the best features of an iPod (plus storage) with the good functions of a phone and make it stylish (not a hard job for Apple right now) then they may just have a chance of beating one of the devices of the decade. For other companies, it will be very hard to beat the iPod in the long run, and the only front I think they will have is pricing - which will only hurt their bottom line, as people will pay a premium to have the iPod. Congratulations to Apple on their market domination with this one, it's well deserved.

You've hinted at the real reason that the iPod is maintaining it's dominance - it's the DRM rules that the labels are imposing on everyone. Because everyone has to lock down their devices and music, nobody can play with an open strategy - and thus nobody can make an offering that is much better than Apple. Unless and until the labels agree to a DRM-less music store, Apple will maintain it's crushing market share.

The reason the iPod is maintaining its dominance in the market is because Apple is selling more of them than any other player. The follow on question of "Why?" has many answers. Certainly, the DRM is one of the why's for those that are technically savvy and/or care about such things, but so is its market dominance (The "Why did you buy a Windows PC over a Mac?" or "Why did you buy VHS over Beta?"; "Because everybody has one", answer.), its style and ease of use are also factors, and its ability to be us

iPod is a fad. All fads eventually die. Some have longer legs than others, but they all eventually fade into a sort of background commodity basis if they don't outright die. Usually, you can tell when a fad is about to die when you see the fad and products for it everywhere...

On the contrary, it's an important distinction: the fad is the rush to buy iPod and is not matched by a rush to market the device itself. A device such as the digital music player that has the potential to become a commonplace commodity cannot be killed by fad consumerism alone.

Listening to music on a specific set of devices made by just one company is (hopefully) a fad, yes. Carrying a seperate device just for playing music is probably also a fad. Closed DRM that only works on a single device may well also be a fad, especially for commodity data such as music and movies.

If nothing else, with the amount of time we've been around intelligent life that makes things like iPods may turn out to just be a fad;)

The day you can walk into Walmart and buy a 4 - 8GB flash player for $39.99 is the day the iPod will die. The iPod will eventually meet the same fate as the Sony Walkman did in the 90s once cheap Japanese knock-offs can be manufactured for cheap enough.

The Osborne 1 computer died. The IBM Stretch 7030 computer died. The Sony Walkman died. The Studebaker died... and so did the Oldsmobile and the Plymouth. Eleven of the twelve corporations in the original Dow Jones Index died. Elvis Presley died. The Soviet Union died. The United Society of Believers (Shakers) died. The Roman Empire died. Kepler's supernova died.

The iPod will die. So will Windows. So will the Toyota Prius. So will Toyota. So will GE, the sole surviving original Dow Jones Index company. So will the United States of America. So will life on earth. So will the sun. Even Jack LaLanne will eventually die (oh, wait...)

When I bought my 1G shuffle, it was cheaper than any other MP3 player that size - almost the same cost as many of the 512M models. At the same cost or less, I went with the Apple MP3 player. All of these players seem to be within $10 of each other, and as parts get cheaper, they seem to add more functionality to keep the price point high. Someone willing to make 5% profit on basic hardware could dethrone the lot.Many folks have large collections of bog standard MP3's. I know I keep my CD collection in a

I think that what the iPod is or does will change but Apple will continue to sell a product called "iPod" for a very long time. Look at the iMac. It's morphed twice into new form factor and added more total features than it started with.

(Article is slashdotted, so I can only react to the submission/summary.)

I realize that some people really like the iPod, but it never particularly appealed to me. There are a lot of people (in absolute terms, not relative terms) who don't see that product as particularly impressive.

What that means, is that they'll never get all the market. There's room for competitors. I doubt anything Microsoft can offer will ever be that competitor, but there will be someone. A few years ago, I though the Neuros wa

... Will M$ ever stop being the most widely used OS and office suites? My guess is it will be like the iPod, if it can keep up with the trends and evolve with it, then yes it will be around for a long time. If it doesn't keep up with trends and falls behind, then of course it will fade. It's all up to the companies that make it not the end user.

Even though more advanced gadgets/control methods will come, people may still prefer the familiar click wheel interface of the Nano for basic music listening. Perhaps it will not be made by Apple, will have much higher quality/capacity or be a part of a multi-function gadget, but I think the design itself has made a lasting impact.

The iPod has only been around for five years! Even in technological time (accounting for Moore's Law, etc.) that's not an overly long time for a product to dominate a market. Market forces always swarm early in a new product's life cycle, especially for dominant products that do what the iPod did to the portable digital music player market. The dominance of the product will level off and it will either become a commodity (i.e., a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time) or be toppled by a better product, or replaced by a newer technology and outmoded. Only time will tell. Most of the points in the article about why the iPod *WON'T* die are a bit shallow. "It's cool" Yeah, so was the Sony Walkman....GONE! Basically, everything said about the iPod is almost EXACTLY what people said about the Sony Walkman in the 1980s; well, except for price. Those bitches were WAY more expensive per inflation adjusted dollar. They also raised almost the same copyright stinks as the iPod and music swapping are doing now. I remember the guy in the car stereo shop telling my Dad about not copying music to tape to play in the car because it was "illegal". This was late 1970s, early 1980s.

Short answer: yes
I mean, did 640K ever extinct? It was "enough for everyone" back then, but now...
That's what's gonna happen to iPod. It's cool and all now, but after some time it will get replaced by something even more cool. Maybe a next-generation-updated iPod, who knows...

This isn't a new observation, but it's the first time that I'm writing about it. Probably because I'm sensing the end of my time here at Slashdot. I have not journaled worth mentioning, and not commented worth mentioning - but I was an avid reader and meta-moderator (and yes, I read many of the articles I meta-modded and their responses, to make sure that I would get non obvious situations right).

The news business, even in it's blog form is a tough business indeed. When the mother of all blogs (i.e Slashdot itself) needs to go trolling for clicks with a front page link to a teenage fanboy's blog related to iPods, it's a sad day indeed.

This article is neither "news for nerds", nor "stuff that matters".

But it's a predictable click gatherer - and it's been promoted to the front page by the Cmdr himself, not a junior apprentice editor.

The Cmdr hasn't lost his marbles - quite the opposite, he has a business to run - and this business is desperately competing with the shrill upstarts with editorial models solely around popularity, rather than quality.

The unwashed masses supply more clicks than even moderately intelligent and critical thinkers.

Populism at work, because populism pays. So now we have editorial control trying to emulate populism. Not the first and not the last time that will happen.

I understand that, but I see a fatal disconnect with Slashdot doing it. Slashdot doesn't do populism best. Slashdot's strength is (was) in quality control (editorial control , followed by discussion with moderation and meta moderation).

However, when the first input (editorial control) to the process isn't even remotely attempting quality control, all other quality control processes are becoming rather irrelevant.

Or to put it more bluntly, if the whole story is a troll, the comments, moderations and meta-moderations can't untroll it.

So I think Slashdot is losing it's way in this battle and like all good things will slowly fade away.

Reminds me a bit of apple in the early to mid 90s. They tried to emulate the populists of their day in their industry, when that's not what they did best.

Why am I mentioning apple?

Because against all odds, apple found its way again and came back - and found that their original essence could get them back into their highly respected and quite nicely profitable niche and they even could become the number one popular choice in another field.

Here's to hoping that Slashdot can do the same, because I miss Slashdot without its original essence.

Also it is already a generic trade mark, so people will buy a "Sony" ipod or Philips one, yes it won't say that on these players but that is how they are referred to.

So as long as mp3 players are around ipods will be. And Apple will have a large share of that. It will also be interesting to see if Apple can take the brand beyond being an mp3 player, so that when the next method of playing music comes along, ipod won't mean something old. Walkmans in my head for instance still mean a cassette player.

Apple actively protects the iPod name. Big problems will arise for any company that uses the name "iPod" for their MP3 player device.

The beauty of digital media is that Apple has already done that: iPod currently plays AAC, MP3, Audible Audio, AIFF, and WAV. The only current format missing from this list that I strongly desire Apple to add (and you can sign a petition here [petitiononline.com]) is OGG Vorbis.

Of course, it's possible for more than one trusted brand to sell a similar product. My examples were only examples. For a long time, Victorinox was not the only official manufacturer of the Swiss Army knife; they recently acquired their long-time consumer competitor Wenger (BTW, my watch is a Wenger: a younger, less known watch brand than Timex but one I still trust on the reputation they've grown in their short lifetime). Silva also make fine compasses, etc. Most Buck knives I've seen are huntsman's/fisher

Actually, all five of those points are wrong. The only one that's even debatable is the battery one - and I'm still using the battery that came with my iPod when I bought it in April 2003. But if by "MP3 only" you really mean "lots of formats, but no OGG" you'd be right.

Interfaces are entirely subjective, though. If you like your iRiver, that's great.:)

For additional reference, I'm using my original G1 iPod 5GB with its original battery from October 2001 (5 year birthday coming up). It lasts for five to six hours on a full charge and is still going strong.

Like someone said, all five points are wrong, and especially the battery one, somewhat.

The batteries themselves are great, I'm using an iPod 1G battery in my iRiver HP-120, but the iPod's OS and the continuous transcoding of MP3 -> AAC kills the batteries. My iRiver runs for nearly 30 hours on the 1G batteries.

Huh?!? The iPod doesn't transcode MP3 to ACC. The iPod directly decompresses the MP3 file and performs a D/A conversion. The resulting signal is sent to the headphone amp.

In fact, an iPod doesn't have a codec (coder/decoder). It only has a decoder. iTunes has the ability to transcode MP3->ACC, but not in real time. Even though iTunes has this ability, transcoding between lossy compression formats is foolish because reduces the qualit

It works just fine as a USB drive. If iTunes isn't installed, then the iPod appears like a normal drive. Once you've installed iTunes, there is an option to reserver a portion of the space on the disk to be used as a normal disk. When you turn this on, the iPod appears like a normal drive when plugged in.

Only MP3s, AACs, Apple Lossless, and WAV files work for music (IIRC). That said, OGG is not popular with the general public. The only format that has much acc

For reasons that utterly escape me, there seem to be no companies interested in making a really good solid state recorder for the modern technoliterati. The ones that do exist all have serious problems and/or are outrageously priced. The M-Audio 2496 has an internal, non servicable rechargable battery. The Marantz 660 and 671 are probably ok function wise but are only at the low end of grossly overpriced. Ironically the Sony RH1 mindisc recorder (which isn't solid state) is about as close as it gets, bu

I don't use Apple products because I believe the company is small, I use Apple products because my research indicated that theirs were better products for my purposes.I needed a new laptop. Windows was frustrating me and I wanted to switch to a Unix-like system anyway. I needed to use the following commercial tools: Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Fireworks (as it then was), Macromedia Freehand (as it then was), Macromedia Flash (as it then was). Wine was not officially supported by those companies and would re